Interestingly, Stephen King hated Stanley Kubrick's cinematic rendition of his novel. I think Shelley Duvall's character was miscast. Her performance made the movie hard to watch at times. The poor woman has lost her mind and now believes that aliens are inhabiting her body. Maybe she's right.
Novels make for terrible movies.
Interestingly, Stephen King hated Stanley Kubrick's cinematic rendition of his novel. I think Shelley Duvall's character was miscast. Her performance made the movie hard to watch at times. The poor woman has lost her mind and now believes that aliens are inhabiting her body. Maybe she's right.
I like this movie because I think it was really nice of Kubrick to let us know that he helped to fake the moon landing. I'm glad he had a change of heart.
http://www.sacredmysteries.com/public/300_2.cfm
M-O-O-N, laws yes, that spells MOON!
Yes it's true, once upon a time Hollywood did produce good movies. And The Shining is a :shining: example of one of them.
I think hating on something because it's not "true to the book" is kind of stupid. If it's exactly the same, why does the movie even exist?
Room 237 (the documentary of Kubrick's "The Shining") with a number of different analyses of the film is now on NetFlix.
Nice they finally got something I wanted to watch. It's 1:45 hours long, I'm about an hour in -- and the current analyst is explaining why The Shining is Kubrick's secret admission of his involvement with the Apollo 13 "fake film." (The idea here is that maybe the landing is real, but the footage was faked so that it could be shown on TV.)
It's definitely an interesting documentary, although some of the ideas flung out there sound pretty whack to me, while others seem more palatable.
I do think Kubrick really liked to toss a lot of reverberating imagery into his films in order to instigate thought, and he wasn't haphazard, so repeated imagery probably has some purpose. He also used a lot of disturbing overlay and scene dissolves, as well as weird and impossible hotel architecture to throw off one's sense of reality in this film.
I think hating on something because it's not "true to the book" is kind of stupid. If it's exactly the same, why does the movie even exist? I like it when things are changed from the book, on many occasions. People still have the book, and can always read the book if they feel a need to know what "really" happened.